Re: POSIX shared memory support

[Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>]

James Mansion wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Yeah, I would be far more interested in this patch if it avoided
> > needing SysV shmem at all.  The problem is to find an adequate
> > substitute for the nattch-based interlock against live children of
> > a dead postmaster.
> >
> >   
> (confused) Why can't you use mmap of /dev/zero and inherit the fd
> into child processes?
> (simple enough to do something similar on Win32, even if the
> mechanism isn't identical)

This is what we do on win32 today. We don't use the sysv emulation
layer anymore.

//Magnus